That's stuff nobody pays attention too, all you do is plug in what needs to be and that's it. I would be unable to answer precisely if someone asked me a similar question about any of the devices I regularly plug to my PC, and for a simple reason... I don't give a shit about it, and the human brain and memory is selective.
Yeah, sure, but if you have one as he claimed, you can just look at it, takes a minute; or make a picture with your mobile phone.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
B: A expensive kit that works properly with top grade components.
If it was me i´d go with B... It is easier to re-balance the cost of parts once your initial launch have been a successes.
Do you really want to set the bar that low? How about not doing stupid stuff. Can we at least strive for that level of competence?
Well... before i say anything i see i was a bit unclear. I meant option B is the best option in the long run.
My bad.
Out of those 2 options i'd take the third, as neither one is really going to help VR in the long run, and for that to happen it would have to become a mainstream device, otherwise nobody is going to make games for it. So, winning formula for the Rift, is really based on people being able to afford to buy it, average consumer is going to baulk at a $600 price tag, under $200 though and it changes the dynamics, the trouble is, can they make a Rift headset that will give the consumer a good enough VR experience without breaking the bank. Otherwise, sales of the Rift are likely to be numbered in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
The inconvenience of a headset that get's very warm and uncomfortable after an hour is always going to be a problem. The porn industry is the only real application that will make this a big niche hit. Put it on, load up some virtual porn, have a good wank, done in 10 minutes or less. Maybe some second life type MMO for the no-lifers.
lies!
I have worn my Dk2 for many hours without it getting warm... do I want to wear it as long as I typically play a game? nope. [mod edit]
From your comments i doubt you even have a DK2. I might be wrong but let's see, shall we?
What does it say underneath the front top cover were the micro USB and HDMI are plugged in?
I cant believe I am actually doing this..
oh well..
The cover itself underneath has the letter A on it etched in. the label behind the connectors has the S/N, on the top of that label it says 'Rift DK2' DC 5V 1000mA
but thats it. no more looking up things to proove that I am not liying. Mostly because when I do post a lot of information you just dismiss it and then I find out you are not even following the thread!!!!
done.
You looked up the wrong info on the internet. That is not all what it says there, sorry, nice try though.
If that's true. Just wow. He loses all credibility and objectivity on this specific subject. Not that he had any objectivity when it came to this headset. Most of the time when these threads pop up for he's been hammering them. Been going on for a long time. So much so that I freaking remember from god knows how long back. I honestly don't care and it doesn't bother me. But I was just glancing through and if what you said is true. I do not get it...
I had a DK2 in my hands three times and I don't remember all what's
written around the HDMI connector. I vaguely remember there's an oculus
logo (eye) there with Oculus written and a bunch of other things, but
that's it.
That supposed "test" means nothing, do you guys
remember everything that is written around your TV's or Receiver's HDMI
connector?
That's stuff nobody pays attention too, all you do is plug in what needs to be and that's it. I would be unable to answer precisely if someone asked me a similar question about any of the devices I regularly plug to my PC, and for a simple reason... I don't give a shit about it, and the human brain and memory is selective.
just to be clear. Mr. Snuffles claiming to have the master DK2 in which all other DK2 will be as his master print despite him not really liking anything about VR and yet feeling the need to by a DK2 kit aside..
I dont think anyone should be 100% confident that a developer kit that was deployed multiple times should all without exception have the same engraving.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Out of those 2 options i'd take the third, as neither one is really going to help VR in the long run, and for that to happen it would have to become a mainstream device, otherwise nobody is going to make games for it. So, winning formula for the Rift, is really based on people being able to afford to buy it, average consumer is going to baulk at a $600 price tag, under $200 though and it changes the dynamics, the trouble is, can they make a Rift headset that will give the consumer a good enough VR experience without breaking the bank. Otherwise, sales of the Rift are likely to be numbered in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
I disagree. Being a luxury product ofc is not good for mass market appeal. But risking becoming another Kinect is a lot worse.
They had to get a unit out on the market, and it had to work. I am sure that FB in theory could have taken a massive loss on it (the way that SONY will have to do) but they seem confident enough in the product that they do not feel they have to do that.
Me personally i see so many fields for VR beyond gaming that it is not an issue.
Out of those 2 options i'd take the third, as neither one is really going to help VR in the long run, and for that to happen it would have to become a mainstream device, otherwise nobody is going to make games for it. So, winning formula for the Rift, is really based on people being able to afford to buy it, average consumer is going to baulk at a $600 price tag, under $200 though and it changes the dynamics, the trouble is, can they make a Rift headset that will give the consumer a good enough VR experience without breaking the bank. Otherwise, sales of the Rift are likely to be numbered in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
I disagree. Being a luxury product ofc is not good for mass market appeal. But risking becoming another Kinect is a lot worse.
They had to get a unit out on the market, and it had to work. I am sure that FB in theory could have taken a massive loss on it (the way that SONY will have to do) but they seem confident enough in the product that they do not feel they have to do that.
Me personally i see so many fields for VR beyond gaming that it is not an issue.
I am not calling what I am about to say as a prediction but I will say if it happens I would not be at all surprise.
I think its completely possible that VR will be bigger thing in all things non-gaming. I think new forms of telling stories will be big and that is already showing itself interesting to movie and TV studios. It can be used for research and engineering as well so the aggregate of all non-gaming industries could end up larger than gaming. I think that is in part why GearVR and Oculus (pre-orders) are both selling very well because its not just gamers who are interested.
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
But what you don't see is music produced in a form that can only be played on $200,000 speakers, and therein lies the problem.
It's not about the hardware, it's about the software. Sure, there are people who will buy the hardware, regardless of price, just because. That's a small market, however, and not one that will see much in the way of specialized software development. VR headsets are expensive paperweights without software and content made specifically for them, and for that to happen there has to be a wide market to justify the development expense.
It's the same problem any specialized peripheral faces, and why most of them fail. They need compelling content, which is the first hurdle. Too many are solutions in search of problems. And they need to have a widespread enough adoption to make creating that content economically viable.
As for other applications... Like...? Movies? TV? Really? $600 per seat to watch a movie or TV in near total isolation? Yeah, sorry, don't see that going much of anywhere. Frankly it's a non-starter even for gaming in many, even most, households, but for other forms of generally at least somewhat social entertainment? Seriously don't see how that's going to fly even if the cost weren't as high as it is.
Out of those 2 options i'd take the third, as neither one is really going to help VR in the long run, and for that to happen it would have to become a mainstream device, otherwise nobody is going to make games for it. So, winning formula for the Rift, is really based on people being able to afford to buy it, average consumer is going to baulk at a $600 price tag, under $200 though and it changes the dynamics, the trouble is, can they make a Rift headset that will give the consumer a good enough VR experience without breaking the bank. Otherwise, sales of the Rift are likely to be numbered in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
I disagree. Being a luxury product ofc is not good for mass market appeal. But risking becoming another Kinect is a lot worse.
They had to get a unit out on the market, and it had to work. I am sure that FB in theory could have taken a massive loss on it (the way that SONY will have to do) but they seem confident enough in the product that they do not feel they have to do that.
Me personally i see so many fields for VR beyond gaming that it is not an issue.
I am not calling what I am about to say as a prediction but I will say if it happens I would not be at all surprise.
I think its completely possible that VR will be bigger thing in all things non-gaming. I think new forms of telling stories will be big and that is already showing itself interesting to movie and TV studios. It can be used for research and engineering as well so the aggregate of all non-gaming industries could end up larger than gaming. I think that is in part why GearVR and Oculus (pre-orders) are both selling very well because its not just gamers who are interested.
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
I'm sure the VR technology will be used in other areas eventually, but the initial generation of VR headsets are targeted at gaming.
So the success or failure of the first generation is all about software support (games). In this case, Oculus being a 'luxury' product is a huge disadvantage. Software developers flock to hardware volume for success. The developers/publishers that tried to sell $100+ games on hardware that didn't sell as well (but was more powerful than the competition) ended up losing money and/or going out of business (like the manufacturers of console hardware that was superior in technology/power, but lost the battle due to price).
It's been shown over and over in the console wars that the console with most high quality games wins (regardless of its power relative to the competition). The same is going to be true with the first generation of VR headsets as they are targeting gamers. That's why it appears to me that Sony's VR will come out ahead in the long run with the Oculus limping to the second generation.
I'm sure the VR technology will be used in other areas eventually, but the initial generation of VR headsets are targeted at gaming.
So the success or failure of the first generation is all about software support (games). In this case, Oculus being a 'luxury' product is a huge disadvantage. Software developers flock to hardware volume for success. The developers/publishers that tried to sell $100+ games on hardware that didn't sell as well (but was more powerful than the competition) ended up losing money and/or going out of business (like the manufacturers of console hardware that was superior in technology/power, but lost the battle due to price).
It's been shown over and over in the console wars that the console with most high quality games wins (regardless of its power relative to the competition). The same is going to be true with the first generation of VR headsets as they are targeting gamers. That's why it appears to me that Sony's VR will come out ahead in the long run with the Oculus limping to the second generation.
normally I would say you are right. However the number of Movie and TV studios jumping on board and actually being 'very early adpoters' make me think otherwise.
Regarding Oculus vs Vive specially (not Playstation) I predict that Vive will be more common as public space VR experiences. Like when you go to the mall and pay $whatever to have a VR experience.
That is my prediction that could be completely wrong though I admit.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, I stupidly spent $600 on a PS3 because of the promise of amazing new games that utilized it's next-gen power. Except, there were almost no games that did that for a long time. There's absolutely no friggin' way I'm spending anything close to $600 + PC upgrades for a peripheral that is supposedly the next-gen "thing." I might consider it if it cost about half of what they are asking.
Yeah I believe if they could price it at 199 they would. The production cost may still be too high. I hope this will be a system the are able to refine, produce for less, charge less, and sell more.
They have a "virtual" monopoly now, and thus their price point. They believe their research has shown that for their price per unit, production capabilities and market share that $600 is where they will make the most money.
Personally I feel that it will not do well at 600 though. It's out of the price range for my kid to get it. I wont buy for gaming since there are not many if any games produced for it. At this price it seems like something some people may pull out at a party, or something business may try to use as a tool. It's definitely not a price for the mass market.
100-200 bucks and I would jump into VR. Till then, it's just not worth it as a solo game play experience. Even then I would need some multi play games, like an MMO.
I worry about my vision with VR. I'm already near sighted from looking at things too close. I think it's best to wait and see the effect vr has on people. I would pay in the $600-700 range which is what I put into my monitors.
@MrSnuffles i think we need to see if the games coming out are worth the price first.
The games coming out will be playable with and without the OR. No developer is crazy enough to develop for the OR only. (except some indie developers).
What we can expect are:
1. A ton of slender-man-haunted-house-jump-scare-youtube-pewdiepie-screaming-horror-shit-games. 2. A ton of demo like playground games with little mini games, moving objects, doing boring stuff in a VR room simulation. 3. A ton of regular games enabled through VorpX to work with the OR and hooking mouse-look into head movement which is neat but ultimately nothing special. 4. A handful of AAA games with distinct OR support but also limited to head movement since that is pretty much the only thing OR adds to the experience. People will still be able to play these AAA titles without an OR.
For me that is simple not enough to put up with the inconvenience and price of this gadget.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
@MrSnuffles i think we need to see if the games coming out are worth the price first.
The games coming out will be playable with and without the OR. No developer is crazy enough to develop for the OR only. (except some indie developers).
What we can expect are:
1. A ton of slender-man-haunted-house-jump-scare-youtube-pewdiepie-screaming-horror-shit-games. 2. A ton of demo like playground games with little mini games, moving objects, doing boring stuff in a VR room simulation. 3. A ton of regular games enabled through VorpX to work with the OR and hooking mouse-look into head movement which is neat but ultimately nothing special. 4. A handful of AAA games with distinct OR support but also limited to head movement since that is pretty much the only thing OR adds to the experience. People will still be able to play these AAA titles without an OR.
For me that is simple not enough to put up with the inconvenience and price of this gadget.
2 years and this fad is dead.
Can I bookmark this quote?
You are pretty much "all in" with this post.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Comments
What is worst for the future of VR
A cheap but poorly working headset with cheap parts.
or
B: A expensive kit that works properly with top grade components.
If it was me i´d go with A... It is easier to re-balance the cost of parts once your initial launch have been a successes.
This have been a good conversation
My bad.
This have been a good conversation
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
So, winning formula for the Rift, is really based on people being able to afford to buy it, average consumer is going to baulk at a $600 price tag, under $200 though and it changes the dynamics, the trouble is, can they make a Rift headset that will give the consumer a good enough VR experience without breaking the bank.
Otherwise, sales of the Rift are likely to be numbered in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
but I still fail to see the whole appeal of it other than being yet another gimmick
I dont think anyone should be 100% confident that a developer kit that was deployed multiple times should all without exception have the same engraving.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
They had to get a unit out on the market, and it had to work. I am sure that FB in theory could have taken a massive loss on it (the way that SONY will have to do) but they seem confident enough in the product that they do not feel they have to do that.
Me personally i see so many fields for VR beyond gaming that it is not an issue.
This have been a good conversation
I think its completely possible that VR will be bigger thing in all things non-gaming. I think new forms of telling stories will be big and that is already showing itself interesting to movie and TV studios. It can be used for research and engineering as well so the aggregate of all non-gaming industries could end up larger than gaming. I think that is in part why GearVR and Oculus (pre-orders) are both selling very well because its not just gamers who are interested.
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's not about the hardware, it's about the software. Sure, there are people who will buy the hardware, regardless of price, just because. That's a small market, however, and not one that will see much in the way of specialized software development. VR headsets are expensive paperweights without software and content made specifically for them, and for that to happen there has to be a wide market to justify the development expense.
It's the same problem any specialized peripheral faces, and why most of them fail. They need compelling content, which is the first hurdle. Too many are solutions in search of problems. And they need to have a widespread enough adoption to make creating that content economically viable.
As for other applications... Like...? Movies? TV? Really? $600 per seat to watch a movie or TV in near total isolation? Yeah, sorry, don't see that going much of anywhere. Frankly it's a non-starter even for gaming in many, even most, households, but for other forms of generally at least somewhat social entertainment? Seriously don't see how that's going to fly even if the cost weren't as high as it is.
So the success or failure of the first generation is all about software support (games). In this case, Oculus being a 'luxury' product is a huge disadvantage. Software developers flock to hardware volume for success. The developers/publishers that tried to sell $100+ games on hardware that didn't sell as well (but was more powerful than the competition) ended up losing money and/or going out of business (like the manufacturers of console hardware that was superior in technology/power, but lost the battle due to price).
It's been shown over and over in the console wars that the console with most high quality games wins (regardless of its power relative to the competition). The same is going to be true with the first generation of VR headsets as they are targeting gamers. That's why it appears to me that Sony's VR will come out ahead in the long run with the Oculus limping to the second generation.
Regarding Oculus vs Vive specially (not Playstation) I predict that Vive will be more common as public space VR experiences. Like when you go to the mall and pay $whatever to have a VR experience.
That is my prediction that could be completely wrong though I admit.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As i said, they are confident enough in the tech that they do not feel that the first gen need to reach mass-market appeal.
Heck this could be the return of the arcades =P
This have been a good conversation
yes...VR arcades in malls.
$1600 for a 'all in' for Oculus sure but could $1,600,000 for a VR arcade in a Mall up the experience 100 fold? I dont know could be interesting.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It would also be a great selling platform for Gen 2 units. =P
Now we just need to find a investor and some spaces to put up shop.
This have been a good conversation
They have a "virtual" monopoly now, and thus their price point. They believe their research has shown that for their price per unit, production capabilities and market share that $600 is where they will make the most money.
Personally I feel that it will not do well at 600 though. It's out of the price range for my kid to get it. I wont buy for gaming since there are not many if any games produced for it. At this price it seems like something some people may pull out at a party, or something business may try to use as a tool. It's definitely not a price for the mass market.
What we can expect are:
1. A ton of slender-man-haunted-house-jump-scare-youtube-pewdiepie-screaming-horror-shit-games.
2. A ton of demo like playground games with little mini games, moving objects, doing boring stuff in a VR room simulation.
3. A ton of regular games enabled through VorpX to work with the OR and hooking mouse-look into head movement which is neat but ultimately nothing special.
4. A handful of AAA games with distinct OR support but also limited to head movement since that is pretty much the only thing OR adds to the experience. People will still be able to play these AAA titles without an OR.
For me that is simple not enough to put up with the inconvenience and price of this gadget.
2 years and this fad is dead.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
You are pretty much "all in" with this post.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance